The Great Fire Sale of our National Heritage: Ted Cruz's Role in an Unconstitutional Land-Grab Scheme

 by Nomad

Did a top-dollar campaign donation from a pair of evangelical brothers have anything to do with Ted Cruz attempt to sneak in a historic land-grab? What do Bundy's and the Oregon occupiers have to do with the corporate takeover of public lands?

Back in July 2015, Republican candidate Ted Cruz's run for the White House was given a boost with a  contribution of $15 million, which was, at that point, the largest known donation to the 2016 presidential campaign. The donor of this campaign life-saver was a pair of billionaire brothers.
Surprisingly, the surname here is not Koch.

However, in many ways, the successful, blue-collar and religious Wilks brothers are a knockoff copy of the Koch brothers. The agenda is similar at the very least. Furthermore, both pairs of brothers have no problem working together if the prize is worth the taking. 

According to Forbes, they are called "undercover billionaires." Farris and Dan Wilks made their sizable fortunes through the fracking industry with the sale of their company Frac Tech to a group of investors led by Singapore’s sovereign wealth fund for $3.5 billion in May 2011. The Wall Street Journal provides some more info on the company.

Frac Tech employs hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, to crack shale rocks for Exxon Mobil Corp., Chesapeake Energy Corp. and other big companies in their search for oil and natural gas.

At the time of the sale, Frac Tech reported 2010 profit of $368.7 million on $1.29 billion in revenue. The Wilks’ took in about $3.2 billion of the total $3.5 billion sale as reported by Forbes. The brothers reportedly owned 68% of the company so they are now wealthy -but not fabulously so, by Texas standards. Their estimated personal worth is $1.4 billion. Each. 

Or to put it another way, they are the small fry of the 1%, but they have more than enough green stuff to build a Christian empire with.

Here's Why Mitch McConnell's Blanket Rejection of all SCOTUS Nominees is such a Dangerous Gamble

by Nomad

The decision by Senate Majority Leader McConnell to block each and every nominee submitted by President Obama could be a very dangerous misjudgment with devastating consequences in November. 

Leader of the Majority in the Senate Mitch McConnell's announcement to stall any SCOTUS candidate President Obama put forward came hours after the news of Justice Scalia's death. McConnell claimed that the matter could not too important to be decided in an election year.

Under McConnell's order, anybody nominated by President Barack will not succeed Justice Antonin Scalia. The confirmation process will be stalled until nearly a year from now after a new president is sworn in. As reported by USAToday, Mcconnell said:

"The American people‎ should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President." 

Democrats pointed out that the American people already had a voice in the selection. It was called the Senate. Their representatives in Congress- democratically-elected- have been designated by the Constitution to act as a Vox populi. Surely McConnell knows his own job description.

The Dangerous Deceptions of Justice Antonin Scalia

by Nomad

As a Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has been the most outspoken of all of the judges. His ultra-conservative views are one of the reasons what induced President Reagan to nominate him back in 1986. Increasingly, Scalia's public declarations have become more and more incautious and deceptive. Isn't it time for Scalia to step down?

About a week ago, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia made a speech at Colorado Christian University. The speech deserves, I think, a closer look because a few of the things that were said should be a cause for concern.

The speech offered clear indisputable proof of Scalia's misrepresentation of the law, the lack of respect for the high court's decision, and even the role of the court itself.
Scalia's public pronouncements have, in short, become a serious threat to the authority of the judicial branch.

Fallacy about Secularism

In Colorado, Justice Scalia told his Christian audience:

“I think the main fight is to dissuade Americans from what the secularists are trying to persuade them to be true: that the separation of church and state means that the government cannot favor religion over nonreligion.

In fact, this is not the secularist position at all. It is not about government favoring religion over non-religion. Secularists may be just as religious as anybody else. Many of them, if not most, are just as religious as the average "Bible-thumper."
So to say this is a debate between the devout and the heathens, believers against non-believers is both insulting and wrong.  

The secularist position is that religion is a personal matter. It belongs in churches or private institutions, but not in the halls of Congress or tax-payer funded schools and other public buildings.

It is simply not possible to represent all religions without making one take priority over any other. Some are even contradictory or otherwise in opposition to others, even within the same religion. There is no state religion and therefore, neutrality between religions is mandated by the Constitution. The government cannot impose any particular religious belief or practice upon its citizens.

Except at a personal level, say the secularists, religion and governance must be distinct from each other. Despite Scalia's remarks, it was never about non-religion.

Justice Scalia is, of course, well aware of these facts but is purposefully misleading the audience. He understands that there are radical religious groups who seek to remove the long-standing separation of Church and State and he is offering them his ideological support.

Privacy Laws and Citizen Journalism: ACORN and Romney's 47% Speech

by Nomad

I wanted to take a moment to follow up on a post I recently wrote on James O'Keefe III and the ACORN scandal.

In a somewhat related story, CBS has reported details about that notorious secret recording of Mitt Romney last year. The controversial video became known as the "47%" speech.

As it turns out, the recorder of that video was not a reporter (even self-designated like O'Keefe) but a bartender who worked at the site in Florida where the speech was given. 

In the speech he told his audience of wealthy campaign contributors that 47% of the population would never vote for him. That percentage of the population was politically unimportant to him. 

"My job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

On the surface, he had a point. And the results of the election confirmed it. The problem was the background to those remarks, who spoke them and to whom they were addressed. These factors behind his speech accounted for in the decline in his popularity of the candidate. He was none to popular in the first place.

I saw one comment that interested me since I had recently investigated the James O'Keefe case in which he was sued by a former ACORN employee for recording him without permission.

The comment  points out that since O'Keefe was arrested on Invasion of Privacy Laws, the law should apply to the bartender as well. The comment reads:

This guy should be brought up on charges for filming someone without there knowledge. If the Acorn fiasco taught us anything, it was that it was illegal to film anyone without there knowledge. Then the people in power get a video that was to there advantage and the rule dosnt [sic] apply. Figure that. Illegal is only illegal when? The line is getting pretty blurry.

It's a valid argument and something that troubled me when I wrote the post.